In response to Babu Gogineni and Levi Fragell pondering on the future of humanism

I am not a believer. In any sense of the word. I do not believe in
human rational potential, nor do I believe in freedom, dignity or
human rights. I do not believe - I know! I know that rational
thinking provides the best possible way of discovering the universe
and the best way of understanding human life - social and individual.
I also know that it provides the best methods to solve human problems
and the best tools for planning progress toward a happier future. As
regards freedom, dignity and human rights, I know that they all
constitute the necessary precondition of such organisation of the human world in which the human potential is realised to the
benefit of the individual and the community at large. I know and
I understand, but I do not claim that this knowledge and
understanding are of scientific character. They are, however, based
on the same principles of cognition on which the scientific method
has been built, and they have been time and time again verified so
conclusively that they should be at least granted the status of
"instrumental knowledge", which could form the solid basis
and justification of our actions.

Despite these apparently rationalistic claims, the humanism I advocate is
equally passionate and fired with strong will. As a philosophy of
freedom and ethical system that gave rise to the idea of dignity for
all, humanism must be vigorously involved in the defence of rights
and liberties and it must be wrathful always, when people are
humiliated or enslaved by other people. I do not, however, share an
opinion that humanism of this century has to be an angry humanism.
If we truly are the children of reason, we should simply
be more flexible: angry - when necessary, compassionate, if need be,
open to dialogue when both sides share goals and values, and ironic,
in the sense ascribed to this concept by Richard Rorty, to prevent
our community from stagnating and becoming excessively moralistic.

Scrutinising Science and Religion

Should humanism be concerned with cosmological questions about the origins
of the universe? Is it true, as Babu Gogineni asserts, that humanism
is nothing, if it is not a continuous interrogation about our
universe and our place in it?

No! We should not try to answer all questions. Here lies one of the many
differences between humanism and religion with its totalitarian
tendency to embrace all aspects of human life. Scientific questions
should be left to scientists. Of course, we must use their findings
to deepen our understanding of the world and improve the quality of
our lives - not without some kind of scrutiny, however. Despite our
full support for the ideal of scientific inquiry, we must not create
a religion of science. Particularly, we should not worship science as
a social institution, as it is often a victim to the same common
fallacies as we all are, or to the fallacies created by its own
specific culture. As Bertrand Russel once said: University life
is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in
academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and
problems of ordinary men and women.[...] Academic institutions,
therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the
interest of civilisation.

Indeed, there are good reasons not to abstain from criticising science - on
no account, however, may we refrain from criticising religion.
Humanism, despite widespread misconceptions, has nothing in common
with religion, although it is true, as Fragell pointed out, that we
are concerned with the same kind of deeper questions as traditional
religion. I do not think, however, that it is the pursuit of
truth that is most important to us, not its possession. Humanists
are as interested in possessing truth, as the religious. Humanists,
however, know that the only way to truth leads through joint
scientific pursuit. What we really reject, in clear opposition to the
religious, is the illusion of "absolute truth", dangerous
and powerful, as it appeals to people's most intrinsic need for the
sense of life, thus constituting a handy tool for those who seek
control of our way of thinking.

The principal difference between humanism and religion lies in the
"methodology of the inquiry". We refer our "deep
questions" to ourselves, while the religious ask their
supernatural authorities or rather their self-appointed, earthly
representatives. We expect the answers to be based on evidence
obtained in fully controlled conditions, to be coherent, to be double
or triple checked - they accept them merely by virtue of faith.

What makes the method of religion particularly pernicious, however, is its
aversion to doubting - this first source of free inquiry. The
faithful are not allowed to raise doubts, as most deities, for some
reason, find them highly offensive. Humanists, quite on the contrary,
are obliged to question any findings, to verify any claims and to
look for better theories providing more reliable answers to their
"deeper" questions.

Why Close the Door?

In the paragraph devoted to deepening our identity, Babu Gogineni
says that humanist groups should be open only to humanists, because
we have shared objectives to pursue and common goals to attain.
Fair enough, but what about those faithful who declare their full
support for our goals and objectives? Over the years, we have been
approached by a number of religiously minded persons who expressed
their wish to join our organisation. They agreed with our
"declaration of values", thus meeting our operational
definition of a humanist, as anyone who entirely accepts its content.
Why should we close our doors to them and how could we justify this
decision? Finally, we invited them to our association on condition,
however, that they do not believe in Hell, as - in our opinion - the
idea of eternal punishment is more incompatible with the humanist
worldview than some vague need for sacrum they seemed to suffer from.
With time, what was first meant as a semi-humorous, provisional
solution, turned into standard practice, particularly when we
realised that our activities were not in any way hindered by their
presence. On the contrary, they supported even the most controversial
projects that were finally rejected by the majority of "genuine"
humanist. They backed the proposal to launch a humorous campaign to
clone the pope and supported a project to file with a Constitutional
Tribunal a motion to outlaw the Catholic Church as an institution
clearly practising and supporting discrimination against women and
sexual minorities. I do not claim that this is an ideal solution for
all. I simply want to say that we should avoid the tendency to adopt
seemingly obvious, rough solutions, where more subtle, creative and
friendly solutions are possible.

Be
More Creative!

Generally speaking, it is this shortage of creative solutions, creative
thinking and creative vision that I miss most in both contributions.
If we really want to grow our "humanist elephant", we need
more courageous and visionary thinking, which - in my opinion - is as
important as "optimism of will" and probably more
important than a better name for our international organisation.
Creativity that I have in mind should mostly take the form of
concrete, spectacular projects, which might appeal to people's
imagination, hopes and hearts. This is not meant to diminish the role
of programmes aimed at meeting basic human needs, as the need for
life-cycle ceremonies or for care services during life crises, whose
importance is so convincingly shown by Levi Fragell. It is a mere
suggestion to enrich our philosophy and politics.

Levi Fragell ponders, why a rapidly growing number of unbelievers in the
world does not lead to the proportional growth of the humanist
movement. He submits that many idealists and humanists who feel
obliged to support our work do not join humanist movement, because
the world is full of good causes and many humanists may feel that we
have not always chosen the most essential ones. Fragell
believes that many of those who have lost their faith replaced their
religion with some kind of subtle secular morality and a strong sense
of social solidarity. I am afraid that this picture is far too
bright. It is rather moral and social indifference that prevails
among the new unbelievers. What today's believers as well as
unbelievers expect from life is rudimentary excitement and
satisfaction derived from defeating their neighbours in a global "win
or loose" game. This is the main reason that millions of
unbelievers do not join the humanist movement or any other movement.
They do not care, neither about humanism, nor about any other "ism".
In my view, it is this moral and philosophical apathy and nihilism
that we must be ready to challenge in the future, if we really want
to replace faith and obedience with reason and compassion.

What About Suffering and Happiness?

Lastly, I would like to refer briefly to "suffering" and
"happiness", these two basic forces in our lives, almost
entirely ignored by both authors. Contemporary humanism has been
based on the idea of inherent dignity of all members of the human
family - emotional dimension of human life, however, somehow escaped
our attention, although, as compassionate naturalists, we simply
can't deny the importance of joy and pain as universally understood
experiences shared by all people.

The concept of dignity in its modern sense is rarely understood and has
been in fact rejected by many philosophers as a notion deprived of
sense. I don't agree with this view (social sciences tell a lot about
human dignity), but there is no doubt that we have not yet succeeded
in devising a satisfactory definition of dignity. Additionally,
humanist and religious concepts of dignity are entirely incompatible:
the former has been derived from the concept of human cognitive and
moral autonomy, while the latter, quite on the contrary, from the
lack of any intellectual or moral independence. This is not to say
that we should abandon speaking of dignity altogether, we should,
however, be aware of its deficiencies and the of difficulties arising
from its confused sense and status.

To understand suffering and happiness we need no words at all. Even
Christianity has not succeeded in corrupting their meaning, although
it created the whole mythology to justify its perverted and
politically motivated ethics of suffering as a positive value and
happiness as a posthumous promise for the meek. Indeed, it is this
morality of slaves that has been the main cause of human misery
throughout the ages. Humanists must never forget this basic truth and
must never cease speaking about human suffering and happiness, while
pursuing their more intellectually sophisticated goals.

Andrzej Dominiczak is a founding member and the president of the Polish
Humanist Association and executive director of the Club "Sapere Aude" - the Polish section of the Center for Inquiry Transnational.
He is also an author, translator, editor and publihser of humanist books.